Testimony 

Before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, April 30, 2003 CONTRACT 

MANAGEMENT 

Comments on Proposed 

Services Acquisition 

Reform Act 

Statement of William T. Woods, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

GAO-03-716T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The growth in spending on service contracts, combined with decreases in 

the acquisition workforce and an increase in the number of high-dollar 

procurement actions, create a challenging acquisition environment. It is 

important that agencies have the authorities and tools they need to maximize 

their performance in this new environment. The initiatives contained in the 

Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) address a number of longstanding 

issues in contracting for services and should enable agencies to improve 

their performance in this area. For example: 

Section 201: Chief Acquisition Officers. Appointing a Chief Acquisition 

Officer would establish a clear line of authority, accountability, and 

responsibility for acquisition decisionmaking. 

Section 103: Government-Industry Exchange Program. A professional 

exchange program would allow federal agencies to gain from the 

knowledge and expertise of the commercial acquisition workforce. 

At the same time, GAO is concerned about some provisions in SARA. For 

example: 

Section 211: Ensuring Efficient Payment. While GAO supports the intent 

of this proposal to make payments to government contractors more 

timely, GAO has reservations concerning its implementation. GAO’s 

work shows that agencies have been hampered by problems such as high 

payment volume, inadequate payment systems, and weak controls. 

GAO’s review of spending and workforce trends in federal procurement 

highlights the significance of services acquisitions. The table below shows 

the percent of contract dollars spent on services by federal agencies. 

Percent of Contract Dollars Spent on Services In Fiscal Year 2001

Since 1997, federal spending on 

services has grown 11 percent and 

now represents more than 60 

percent of contract spending 

governmentwide. Several 

significant changes in the 

government—including funding for 

homeland security—are expected 

to further increase spending on 

services. Adjusting to this new 

environment has proven difficult. 

Agencies need to improve in a 

number of areas: sustaining 

executive leadership, strengthening 

the acquisition workforce, and 

encouraging innovative contracting 

approaches. Improving these areas 

is a key goal of SARA. 

GAO is not making 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-716T.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William T. 

Woods at (202) 512-4841 or 

woodsw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-716T, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

April 30, 2003

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 

Comments on Proposed Services 

Acquisition Reform Act 
Page 1 GAO-03-716T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting the General Accounting Office (GAO) to participate 

in today’s hearing on the proposed Services Acquisition Reform Act of 

2003 (SARA). Over the past several years, the federal acquisition 

environment has changed dramatically. Spending for services has 

increased significantly and now represents more than 60 percent of all 

federal contract spending. At the same time, there has been a reduction in 

the size of the acquisition workforce, and the use of alternative contracting 

approaches has been growing. The purpose of SARA is to provide federal 

agencies with additional tools for addressing these developments. We fully 

support this objective, and look forward to continuing to work with this 

Committee and others in finding ways to promote more efficient and 

effective acquisitions. 

In my testimony today, I will: 

• Summarize recent trends in contract spending and in the acquisition 

workforce, and 

• Discuss our views on selected provisions of SARA based on relevant GAO 

reports. 

We recently issued several reports on acquisition spending and workforce 

trends. These reports show that spending on services acquisitions is 

increasing at a time when the acquisition workforce is decreasing. 

Our report on spending and workforce trends in federal procurement1

shows that federal agencies continue to buy far more services than goods. 

Since 1997, spending on services has grown 11 percent. In fiscal year 2001, 

over 60 percent of the more than $220 billion in goods and services 

purchased by the federal government was for services.2

 At six agencies, 

 1 Federal Procurement: Spending and Workforce Trends, GAO-03-443 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 30, 2003). 

2

 Federal agencies spent about $140 billion on services and about $81 billion on goods for 

contracts valued at more than $25,000. The Federal Procurement Data System does not 

provide similar information for contracts valued at $25,000 or less. However, the combined 

total of purchases of goods and services for fiscal year 2001 was more than $235 billion. 

Contract Spending 

and Workforce Trends 

Spending Trends 
Page 2 GAO-03-716T 

procurement of services exceeded 75 percent of their total spending on 

contracts; at one agency, the Department of Energy, nearly 100 percent of 

total spending via contracts was for services (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Percent of Contract Dollars Spent on Services in Fiscal Year 2001 

Spending on services could increase even further, at least in the short 

term, given the President’s recent request for additional funds for defense 

and homeland security. The degree to which individual agencies are 

currently contracting for services and the growth of services spending 

underscore the importance of ensuring that service acquisitions are 

managed properly. 

Industry and government experts alike recognize that the key to a 

successful transformation toward a more effective acquisition system is 

having the right people with the right skills. To increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of acquiring goods and services, the government is relying 

more on judgment and initiative versus rigid rules to make purchasing 

decisions. 

Agencies have to address governmentwide reductions in the acquisition 

workforce. At the same time, government contract actions exceeding 

Workforce Challenges 
Page 3 GAO-03-716T 

$25,000 have increased significantly—by 26 percent between fiscal years 

1997 and 2001 (see table 1). 

Table 1: Federal Acquisition Personnel and Workload 

Acquisition workforce Changes in contract actions, fiscal years 1997 through 2001 

Agency Total Sept. 2001 

Percent change in 

workforce since 

fiscal year 1997 

Change in total 

contract actions 

(percent)

Change in contract 

actions exceeding 

$25,000 (percent)

Change in 

contract actions 

under $25,000 

(percent)

Governmentwide 103,053 -5 -6 26 -7 

DOD 68,513 -9 5 27 4 

USDA 5,703 -6 -79 25 -81 

DOE 1,449 10 4 19 -3 

GSA 2,743 11 -75 68 -82 

HHS 2,490 9 -29 44 -31 

DOJ 1,457 -2 -11 26 -13 

NASA 1,246 -4 -38 -12 -50 

DOT 1,514 -7 -37 27 -48 

Treasury 2,561 8 12 15 11 

VA 2,562 -6 29 -12 30 

Sources: OPM, FPDS, and FAA. 

Over the past year, GAO issued four reports on the management and 

training of the government’s acquisition workforce.3

 While the agencies4

we reviewed are taking steps to address their future acquisition workforce 

needs, each is encountering challenges in their efforts. In particular, 

shifting priorities, missions, and budgets have made it difficult for agencies 

to predict, with certainty, the specific skills and competencies the 

acquisition workforce may need. 

 3

Acquisition Workforce: Department of Defense’s Plans to Address Workforce Size and 

Structure Challenges, GAO-02-630 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002); Acquisition 

Workforce: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Future Needs, GAO-03-55 (Washington, 

D.C.: Dec. 18, 2002); Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the 

Training of Their Employees, GAO-02-737 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 29, 2002); and 

Acquisition Management: Agencies Can Improve Training on New Initiatives, 

GAO-03-281 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 2003). 

4

 Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). 
Page 4 GAO-03-716T 

Training is critical in ensuring that the acquisition workforce has the right 

skills. To deliver training effectively, leading organizations typically 

prioritize and set requirements for those in need of training to ensure their 

training reaches the right people. Agencies we reviewed5 had developed 

specific training requirements for their acquisition workforce and had 

efforts underway to make training available and raise awareness of major 

acquisition initiatives. However, they did not have processes for ensuring 

that training reaches all those who need it. And while agencies had also 

developed a variety of systems to track the training of their personnel, 

they experienced difficulties with these systems. 

We have issued a number of reports on key provisions of SARA. These 

reports address the areas of acquisition leadership, workforce, contract 

innovations, as well as other proposals. 

Our discussions with officials from leading companies, which we reported 

on last year,6

 indicate that a procurement executive or Chief Acquisition 

Officer plays a critical role in changing an organization’s culture and 

practices. In response to many of the same challenges faced by the federal 

government—such as a lack of tools to ensure they receive the best value 

over time—each of the companies we studied changed how they acquired 

services in significant ways. For example, each elevated or expanded the 

role of the company’s procurement organization; designated “commodity” 

managers to oversee key services; and/or made extensive use of crossfunctional teams. Taking a strategic approach paid off. One official, for 

example, estimated that his company saved over $210 million over a recent 

5-year period by pursuing a more strategic approach. 

Bringing about these new ways of doing business, however, was 

challenging. To overcome these challenges, the companies found they 

 5

 The agencies we reviewed for the two reports on training included Department of Defense 

(DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA), Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

6

Best Practices: Taking a Strategic Approach Could Improve DOD’s Acquisition of 

Services, GAO-02-230 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2002). 

GAO Work Related to 

SARA 

Leadership 

Section 201: Chief Acquisition 

Officer 
Page 5 GAO-03-716T 

needed to have sustained commitment from their senior leadership—first, 

to provide the initial impetus to change, and second, to keep up the 

momentum. 

Section 201 of SARA would create a Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) 

within each civilian executive agency. We support this provision. By 

granting the CAO clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility 

for acquisition decision-making, SARA takes a similar approach as leading 

companies in terms of the responsibility and decision-making authority of 

these individuals. 

Comptroller General David Walker testified earlier this month7

 that 

strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any 

serious government transformation effort and that federal workers can be 

an important part of the solution to the overall transformation effort. In 

July 2001,8

 he recommended that Congress explore greater flexibilities to 

allow federal agencies to enhance their skills mix by leveraging the 

expertise of private sector employees through innovative fellowship 

programs. 

The acquisition professional exchange program proposed in section 103 of 

SARA could enhance the ability of federal workers to successfully 

transform the way the federal government acquires services. The program, 

which is modeled after the Information Technology Exchange Program 

included in the recently passed E-Government Act of 2002,9

 would permit 

the temporary exchange of high-performing acquisition professionals 

between the federal government and participating private-sector entities. 

We support this provision, which begins to address a key question we face 

in the federal government: Do we have today, or will we have tomorrow, 

the ability to manage the procurement of the increasingly sophisticated 

services the government needs? Following a decade of downsizing and 

 7 Human Capital: Building on the Current Momentum to Address High-Risk Issues, 

GAO-03-637T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2003). 

8 Human Capital: Building the Information Technology Workforce to Achieve Results, 

GAO-01-1007T (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001). 

9

 Public Law 107-347, Section 209. 

Acquisition Workforce 

Section 103: GovernmentIndustry Exchange Program 
Page 6 GAO-03-716T 

curtailed investments in human capital, federal agencies currently face 

skills, knowledge, and experience imbalances that, without corrective 

action, will worsen. The program established by section 103 would allow 

federal agencies to gain from the knowledge and expertise of privatesector professionals and entities. 

Section 102 of SARA would establish an acquisition workforce training 

fund using five percent of the fees generated by governmentwide contract 

programs. We recently completed a review of fees charged on 

governmentwide contracts—covering all five designated executive 

agencies for governmentwide acquisition contracts and the General 

Services Administration’s Schedules program.10 The Office of Management 

and Budget’s guidance directs agencies operating governmentwide 

information technology contracts to transfer fees in excess of costs to the 

miscellaneous receipts account of the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund. 

Further, some of these contracts operate under revolving fund statutes 

that limit the use of fees to the authorized purposes of the funds. 

Quality training is important, and we recognize the need for adequate 

funds for training. In our view, however, the procuring agencies should 

ensure that adequate funding is available through the normal budgeting 

process to provide the training the acquisition workforce needs. We are 

concerned about relying on contract program fees–which can vary from 

year to year and which are intended to cover other requirements–as a 

source of funding for such an important priority as workforce training. 

Several sections of SARA would encourage the use of innovative contract 

types that could provide savings to the government. For example, 

performance-based contracts can offer significant benefits, such as 

encouraging contractors to find cost-effective ways of delivering services. 

Share-in-savings contracting, one type of performance-based contracting, 

is an agreement in which a client compensates a contractor from the 

financial benefits derived as a result of the contract performance. 

 10 Contract Management: Interagency Contract Program Fees Need More Oversight, 

GAO-02-734 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2002). Our review showed that in some years 

contract fees exceeded costs and in others the fees fell short of covering the costs 

incurred. From fiscal year 1999 to 2001, the revenue generated by the GSA’s Schedules 

program fees exceeded program costs by over 50 percent. We recommended that the fee be 

adjusted. Based on our recommendation, GSA initiated action toward a 25-percent 

reduction in the fee it charges for using the Schedules program.

Section 102: Acquisition 

Workforce Training Fund 

Innovative Contracting 
Page 7 GAO-03-716T 

Share-in-savings contracting can motivate contractors to generate savings 

and revenues for their clients. We issued a report earlier this year in 

response to your request that we determine how the commercial sector 

uses share-in-savings contracting.11 We examined four commercial sharein-savings contracts and identified common characteristics that made 

them successful. 

In the commercial share-in-savings contracts we reviewed, we found four 

conditions that facilitated success: 

• An expected outcome is clearly specified. By outcomes, we mean such 

things as generating savings by eliminating inefficient business practices 

or identifying new revenue centers. It is critical that a client and 

contractor have a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve. 

• Incentives are defined. Both the client and contractor need to strike a 

balance between the level of risk and reward they are willing to pursue. 

• Performance measures are established. By its nature, share-in-savings 

cannot work without having a baseline and good performance measures to 

gauge exactly what savings or revenues are being achieved. Agreement 

must be reached on how metrics are linked to contractor intervention. 

• Top management commitment is secured. A client’s top executives 

need to provide contractors with the authority needed to carry out 

solutions, since change from the outside is often met with resistance. They 

also need to help sustain a partnership over time since relationships 

between the contractor and client can be tested in the face of changing 

market conditions and other barriers. 

The companies in our study found that successful arrangements have 

generated savings and revenues. In one case highlighted in our report, 

$980,000 was realized in annual energy savings. 

We have not found share-in-savings contracting to be widespread in the 

commercial sector or the federal government. Excluding the energy 

industry, we found limited references to companies or state agencies that 

use or have used the share-in-savings concept. In addition, there are few 

documented examples of share-in-savings contracting in the federal 

 11 Contract Management: Commercial Use of Share-in-Savings Contracting, GAO-03-327

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2003). 

Section 301: Share-in-Savings 

Initiatives 
Page 8 GAO-03-716T 

government. Officials in federal agencies we spoke with noted that such 

arrangements may be difficult to pursue given potential resistance and the 

lack of good baseline performance data. In addition, in previous work,12

Department of Energy headquarters officials told us they believe such 

contracts can be best used when federal funding is unavailable. 

To achieve the potential benefits from the use of share-in-savings 

contracting, it may be worthwhile to examine ways to overcome potential 

issues. For example, in a letter to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

in March of this year,13 we recognized that share-in-savings contracting 

represents a significant change in the way the federal government acquires 

services. To address this challenge, we underscored the need for the 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy to develop guidance and policies 

that could ensure that (1) appropriate data are collected and available to 

meet mandated reporting requirements regarding the effective use of 

share-in-savings contracting, and (2) members of the federal acquisition 

workforce understand and appropriately apply this new authority. 

Section 401 authorizes agencies to treat a contract or task order as being 

for a commercial item if it is performance-based—that is, it describes each 

task in measurable, mission-related terms, and identifies the specific 

outputs—and the contractor provides similar services and terms to the 

public. This provision, which would only apply if the contract or task 

order were valued at $5 million or less, would provide another tool to 

promote greater use of performance-based contracting. 

Our spending and workforce trends report shows that in fiscal year 2001, 

agencies reported that 24 percent of their eligible service contracts, by 

dollar value, were performance-based. However, there was wide variation 

in the extent to which agencies used performance-based contracts. As 

figure 2 shows, 3 of the 10 agencies in our review fell short of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s goal that 10 percent of eligible service contracts 

be performance-based. 

 12 Energy Conservation: Contractor’s Efforts at Federally Owned Sites, GAO/RCED-94-96

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 1994). 

13 Contract Management: OFPP Policy Regarding Share-in-Savings Contracting 

Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, GAO-03-552R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 

2003). 

Section 401: Additional 

Incentives for Use of 

Performance-Based 

Contracting for Services 
Page 9 GAO-03-716T 

Figure 2: Percentage of Eligible Contracts Considered Performance Based 

a

 DOE and VA officials stated that their internal data systems report a higher use of performancebased contracting in fiscal year 2001 than the data in FPDS. For example, DOE officials believed 

77 percent of their eligible contracts were performance based, while VA officials believed their 

agency’s figure should be about 11 percent. 

b

 Figure reflects data for DOT only; FAA could not provide performance-based service contracting 

data because it was not an integral part of its management information systems. 

In our September 2002 report,14 we recommended that the Administrator 

of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy clarify existing guidance to 

ensure that performance-based contracting is appropriately used, 

particularly when acquiring more unique and complex services that 

require strong government oversight. If section 401 is enacted, we believe 

that clear guidance will be needed to ensure effective implementation. The 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy might be assisted in developing and 

updating meaningful guidance by establishing a center for excellence to 

identify best practices in service contracting, as required by section 401. A 

center for excellence may help federal agencies learn about successful 

ways to implement performance-based contracting. 

 14 Contract Management: Guidance Needed for Using Performance-Based Service 

Contracting, GAO-02-1049 (Washington, D.C.: Sept., 23, 2002).
Page 10 GAO-03-716T 

Section 501 would authorize those civilian agencies approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget to use so-called “other transactions” for 

projects related to defense against or recovery from terrorism, or nuclear, 

biological, chemical, or radiological attacks. Other transactions are 

agreements that are not contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. This 

authority would be similar to that currently available to the Departments 

of Homeland Security and Defense. 

Because statutes that apply only to procurement contracts do not apply to 

other transactions, this authority may be useful to agencies in attracting 

firms that traditionally decline to do business with the government. In fact, 

our work shows that the Department of Defense has had some success in 

using other transactions to attract nontraditional firms to do business with 

the government. Our work also has shown, however, that there is a critical 

need for guidance on when and how other transactions may best be used. 

The guidance developed by the Department of Defense may prove helpful 

to other agencies should the Congress decide to expand the availability of 

other transaction authority. 

Section 211 provides for a streamlined payment process under which 

service contractors could submit invoices for payment on a biweekly or a 

monthly basis. Biweekly invoices would be required to be submitted 

electronically. 

While we support the intent of this proposal—to make payments to 

government contractors more timely—implementation of this provision 

could result in increased improper payments and stress already weak 

systems and related internal controls. Agency efforts to address improper 

payment problems have been hampered by high payment volume, speed of 

service, inadequate payment systems and processes, internal control 

weaknesses, and downsizing in the acquisition and financial management 

community. Until federal agencies make significant progress in eliminating 

their payment problems, requirements to accelerate service contract 

payments would likely increase the risk of payment errors, backlogs, and 

late payment interest. 

Section 213 would provide for agency-level protests of acquisition 

decisions alleged to violate law or regulation. An agency would have 

Section 501: Authority to Enter 

Into Certain ProcurementRelated Transactions and to 

Carry Out Certain Prototype 

Projects 

Additional Comments on 

SARA Proposals 

Section 211: Ensuring Efficient 

Payment 

Section 213: Agency 

Acquisition Protests 
Page 11 GAO-03-716T 

20 working days to issue a decision on a protest, during which time the 

agency would be barred from awarding a contract or continuing with 

performance if a contract already had been awarded. If an agency-level 

protest were denied, a subsequent protest to GAO that raised the same 

grounds and was filed within 5 days would trigger a further stay pending 

resolution of that protest. 

We believe that a protest process that is effective, expeditious, and 

independent serves the interests of all those involved in or affected by the 

procurement system. Section 213 appears to address each of these criteria. 

First, although protests currently may be filed with the procuring agencies, 

section 213 would provide for a more effective agency-level protest 

process by requiring that an agency suspend, or “stay,” the procurement 

until the protest is resolved. Second, the process would be relatively 

expeditious because decisions would be required within 20 working days. 

Having an expeditious process at the agency is especially important 

because section 213 would provide for a stay both during the agency-level 

protest and then during any subsequent GAO protest. It should be noted, 

though, that 20 working days may not be adequate for a thorough review, 

particularly in complex procurements. Finally, requiring protests to be 

decided by the head of the agency may help to mitigate longstanding 

concerns about a perceived lack of independence when decisions on 

agency-level protests are issued by officials closely connected with the 

decision being protested. 

Section 402 would provide for a change to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to include the use of time-and-materials and labor-hour 

contracts for commercial services commonly sold to the general public. 

This change would make it clear that such contracts are specifically 

authorized for commercial services. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation states that a time-and-materials 

contract may be used only when it is not possible to estimate accurately 

the extent or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any 

reasonable degree of confidence. Therefore, adequate surveillance is 

required to give reasonable assurance that the contractor is using efficient 

methods and effective cost controls. 

Section 404 would designate as a commercial item any product or service 

sold by a commercial entity that over the past 3 years made 90 percent of 

its sales to private sector entities. We are concerned that the provision 

allows for products or services that had never been sold or offered for sale 

in the commercial marketplace to be considered a commercial item. In 

Section 402: Authorization of 

Additional Commercial 

Contract Types 

Section 404: Designation of 

Commercial Business Entities 
Page 12 GAO-03-716T 

such cases, the government may not be able to rely on the assurances of 

the marketplace in terms of the quality and pricing of the product or 

service. 

The growth in spending on service contracts, combined with decreases in 

the acquisition workforce and an increase in the number of high-dollar 

procurement actions, create a challenging acquisition environment. It is 

important that agencies have the authorities and tools they need to 

maximize their performance in this new environment. The initiatives 

contained in SARA address a number of longstanding issues in contracting 

for services, and should enable agencies to improve their performance in 

this area. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Contact and Acknowledgments

For further information, please contact William T. Woods at 

(202) 512-4841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Blake Ainsworth, Christina Cromley, Timothy DiNapoli, Gayle 

Fischer, Paul Greeley, Oscar Mardis, and Karen Sloan. 

Conclusion 

(120243) 
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs